Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives Most studies of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) incidence and prevalence among workers have been limited by small sample sizes or restricted to a small subset of jobs. We established a common CTS case definition and then pooled CTS prevalence and incidence data across six prospective studies of musculoskeletal outcomes to measure CTS frequency and allow better studies of etiology. Methods Six research groups collected prospective data at >50 workplaces including symptoms characteristic of CTS and electrodiagnostic studies (EDS) of the median and ulnar nerves across the dominant wrist. While study designs and the timing of data collection varied across groups, we were able to create a common CTS case definition incorporating both symptoms and EDS results from data that were collected in all studies. Results At the time of enrollment, 7.8% of 4321 subjects met our case definition and were considered prevalent cases of CTS. During 8833 person-years of follow-up, an additional 204 subjects met the CTS case definition for an overall incidence rate of 2.3 CTS cases per 100 person-years. Conclusions Both prevalent and incident CTS were common in data pooled across multiple studies and sites. The large number of incident cases in this prospective study provides adequate power for future exposure— response analyses to identify work- and non-work-related risk factors for CTS. The prospective nature allows determination of the temporal relations necessary for causal inference.

Background Between 2001 and 2010, five research groups conducted coordinated prospective studies of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) incidence among US workers from various industries and collected detailed subject-level exposure information with follow-up of symptoms, electrophysiological measures and job changes. Objective This analysis examined the associations between workplace biomechanical factors and incidence of dominant-hand CTS, adjusting for personal risk factors. Methods 2474 participants, without CTS or possible polyneuropathy at enrolment, were followed up to 6.5 years (5102 person-years). Individual workplace exposure measures of the dominant hand were collected for each task and included force, repetition, duty cycle and posture. Task exposures were combined across the workweek using time-weighted averaging to estimate job-level exposures. CTS case-criteria were based on symptoms and results of electrophysiological testing. HRs were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Results After adjustment for covariates, analyst (HR=2.17; 95% CI 1.38 to 3.43) and worker (HR=2.08; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.39) estimated peak hand force, forceful repetition rate (HR=1.84; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.86) and per cent time spent (eg, duty cycle) in forceful hand exertions (HR=2.05; 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15) were associated with increased risk of incident CTS. Associations were not observed between total hand repetition rate, per cent duration of all hand exertions, or wrist posture and incident CTS. Conclusions In this prospective multicentre study of production and service workers, measures of exposure to forceful hand exertion were associated with incident CTS after controlling for important covariates. These findings may influence the design of workplace safety programmes for preventing work-related CTS.

Background Between 2001 and 2010, six research groups conducted coordinated multiyear, prospective studies of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) incidence in US workers from various industries and collected detailed subject-level exposure information with follow-up symptom, physical examination, electrophysiological measures and job changes. Objective This analysis of the pooled cohort examined the incidence of dominant-hand CTS in relation to demographic characteristics and estimated associations with occupational psychosocial factors and years worked, adjusting for confounding by personal risk factors. Methods 3515 participants, without baseline CTS, were followed-up to 7 years. Case criteria included symptoms and an electrodiagnostic study consistent with CTS. Adjusted HRs were estimated in Cox proportional hazard models. Workplace biomechanical factors were collected but not evaluated in this analysis. Results Women were at elevated risk for CTS (HR=1.30; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.72), and the incidence of CTS increased linearly with both age and body mass index (BMI) over most of the observed range. High job strain increased risk (HR=1.86; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.14), and social support was protective (HR=0.54; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.95). There was an inverse relationship with years worked among recent hires with the highest incidence in the first 3.5 years of work (HR=3.08; 95% CI 1.55 to 6.12). Conclusions Personal factors associated with an increased risk of developing CTS were BMI, age and being a woman. Workplace risk factors were high job strain, while social support was protective. The inverse relationship between CTS incidence and years worked among recent hires suggests the presence of a healthy worker survivor effect in the cohort.

Background Little is known about the most effective occupational health and safety (OHS) interventions to reduce upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and injuries. Methods A systematic review used a best evidence synthesis approach to address the question: “do occupational health and safety interventions have an effect on upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms, signs, disorders, injuries, claims and lost time?” Results The search identified 36 studies of sufficient methodological quality to be included in data extraction and evidence synthesis. Overall, a mixed level of evidence was found for OHS interventions. Levels of evidence for interventions associated with positive effects were: Moderate evidence for arm supports; and Limited evidence for ergonomics training plus workstation adjustments, new chair and rest breaks. Levels of evidence for interventions associated with “ no effect ” were: Strong evidence for workstation adjustment alone; Moderate evidence for biofeedback training and job stress management training; and Limited evidence for cognitive behavioral training. No interventions were associated with “ negative effects ”. Conclusion It is difficult to make strong evidenced-based recommendations about what practitioners should do to prevent or manage upper extremity MSDs. There is a paucity of high quality OHS interventions evaluating upper extremity MSDs and none focused on traumatic injury outcomes or workplace mandated pre-placement screening exams. We recommend that worksites not engage in OHS activities that include only workstation adjustments. However, when combined with ergonomics training, there is limited evidence that workstation adjustments are beneficial. A practice to consider is using arm supports to reduce upper extremity MSDs.

The literature examining the effects of workstation, eyewear and behavioral interventions on musculoskeletal and visual symptoms among computer users is large and heterogeneous. A systematic review of the literature used a best evidence synthesis approach to address the general question \"Do office interventions among computer users have an effect on musculoskeletal or visual health?\" This was followed by an evaluation of specific interventions. The initial search identified 7313 articles which were reduced to 31 studies based on content and quality. Overall, a mixed level of evidence was observed for the general question. Moderate evidence was observed for: (1) no effect of workstation adjustment, (2) no effect of rest breaks and exercise and (3) positive effect of alternative pointing devices. For all other interventions mixed or insufficient evidence of effect was observed. Few high quality studies were found that examined the effects of interventions in the office on musculoskeletal or visual health.

Objectives Most previous studies of the association between psychosocial stress and musculoskeletal illness among computer users have been cross-sectional and have yielded inconsistent results. The association between a measure of psychosocial stress, \"job strain\", and incident neck-shoulder and arm-hand musculoskeletal symptoms was investigated among recently hired computer users. Methods The participants worked for one of several large employers and were followed prospectively for 6 months. The \"job demands\" and \"decision latitude\" subscales of the Job Content Questionnaire were used to estimate the job-strain quadrants and a ratio measure of job strain which was subsequently categorized. Incident musculoskeletal symptoms were obtained with weekly diaries. Proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations between job strain and incident musculoskeletal symptoms. Results Those in the high-strain quadrant were at increased risk of neck-shoulder symptoms [hazard ratio (HR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.91-2.99] when compared with those in the low-strain quadrant. Those in the highest strain-ratio category were also at increased risk of neck-shoulder symptoms when compared with those in the lowest strain-ratio category (HR 1.52,95% CI 0.88-2.62). Modification by previous years of computer use was observed, with an elevated risk observed for those in the highest job-strain ratio category who also had low previous computer use (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.25-8.00). There did not appear to be an association between either measure of job strain and incident arm-hand symptoms. Conclusions In this cohort, workers who reported high job strain were more likely to develop neck-shoulder symptoms.

Organophosphorous insecticides (OPs) are the most commonly used insecticides in US agriculture, but little information is available regarding specific OP use by individual farmers. We describe OP use for licensed private pesticide applicators from Iowa and North Carolina in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) using lifetime pesticide use data from 701 randomly selected male participants collected at three time periods. Of 27 OPs studied, 20 were used by >1%. Overall, 95% had ever applied at least one OP. The median number of different OPs used was 4 (maximum=13). Malathion was the most commonly used OP (74%) followed by chlorpyrifos (54%). OP use declined over time. At the first interview (1993–1997), 68% of participants had applied OPs in the past year; by the last interview (2005–2007), only 42% had. Similarly, median annual application days of OPs declined from 13.5 to 6 days. Although OP use was common, the specific OPs used varied by state, time period, and individual. Much of the variability in OP use was associated with the choice of OP, rather than the frequency or duration of application. Information on farmers’ OP use enhances our ability to characterize and understand the potential health effects of multiple OP exposures.

BackgroundWithout a comprehensive national surveillance system in the USA, the agricultural sector faces numerous obstacles to accurate and complete injury reporting and surveillance. Secondary sources are increasingly being used to conduct surveillance but have not been thoroughly evaluated for their overlap and ability to capture various types of agricultural injuries.MethodsUsing two state-level systems which likely capture severe injuries, the (i) Iowa Trauma Registry (ITR) and (ii) Workers’ Compensation (WC) records, we compared worker and injury characteristics found in these two data sources over a ten-year period (2005–2014) and developed a predictive model to determine which injuries are most likely captured in one data source vs the other.ResultsA total of 2398 unique injuries from ITR and 3419 unique injuries from WC were found. There was very little overlap between the two sources. In general, injuries among older agricultural workers (65+) had a higher probability of capture by the ITR, while injuries among younger agricultural workers were more likely captured by WC. Young agricultural workers injured in motor vehicle traffic incidents were more likely captured by WC, but after age 25, these injuries were more likely captured by the ITR. In contrast, more machinery injuries were captured by the ITR than WC across age.ConclusionsNeither of these secondary systems fully captured all injuries. Hence, comprehensive surveillance would require multiple data sources. However, future studies involving targeted research questions could select one data source, especially when surveillance resources are limited.